Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Page F4-i Environmental Impact Report RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL EA/RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR SECTIONS Introduction The Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment/ Recirculated Sections of the Draft EIR (Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections) was made available to identified stakeholders, agencies, and the general public for review and comment for a 45- day review period from July 22, 2011 through September 6, 2011. This volume of this Final EIS/EIR contains copies of all written comments and provides written responses to all comments received on the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections. A total of 31 comment letters were received during the public review period. Overall, a total of 263 individual comments were received on the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections. The format for the responses to comments presents each comment letter bracketed into separate comments, followed by corresponding responses to each individual comment of that comment letter. The comment letters and responses are organized and grouped into the following categories based on the affiliation of the commenter as follows: Letter ID Prefix Description R-AF Federal Agency R-AL Local Agency R-AS State Agency R-BU Businesses and Business Groups R-CN Community Groups and Non-Profit Organizations R-PC Public Comment To assist the reader's review and use of the responses to comments, two indices that provide the commenter name, affiliation, and comment letter identification designator (e.g., R-PC1) for each comment letter are provided below. The first index lists all the comment letters by comment letter identification designator and the second lists all of the comment letters alphabetically by commenter's last name.
Transcript
Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Page F4-i Environmental Impact Report
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL EA/RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR SECTIONS
Introduction The Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment/ Recirculated Sections of the Draft EIR (Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections) was made available to identified stakeholders, agencies, and the general public for review and comment for a 45-day review period from July 22, 2011 through September 6, 2011.
This volume of this Final EIS/EIR contains copies of all written comments and provides written responses to all comments received on the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections. A total of 31 comment letters were received during the public review period. Overall, a total of 263 individual comments were received on the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections.
The format for the responses to comments presents each comment letter bracketed into separate comments, followed by corresponding responses to each individual comment of that comment letter. The comment letters and responses are organized and grouped into the following categories based on the affiliation of the commenter as follows:
Letter ID Prefix Description
R-AF Federal Agency
R-AL Local Agency
R-AS State Agency
R-BU Businesses and Business Groups
R-CN Community Groups and Non-Profit Organizations
R-PC Public Comment
To assist the reader's review and use of the responses to comments, two indices that provide the commenter name, affiliation, and comment letter identification designator (e.g., R-PC1) for each comment letter are provided below. The first index lists all the comment letters by comment letter identification designator and the second lists all of the comment letters alphabetically by commenter's last name.
Volume F-4 Responses to Comments
Page F4-ii Regional Connector Transit Corridor
Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections Index by Comment Letter Designator
Comment Letter
Affiliation Last Name First Name Comment
Page Response
Page
Federal Agencies
R-AF1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security - FEMA
Blackburn Gregor F4-2 F4-4
R-AF2 U.S. Department of the Interior Port Patricia Sanderson
F4-5 F4-7
Local Agencies
R-AL1 City of Los Angeles - Bureau of Engineering Tran Curtis F4-9 F4-10
R-AL2 City of Los Angeles - Department of Transportation
Bok Susan F4-11 F4-12
R-AL3 City of Los Angeles - Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation
Poosti Ali F4-13 F4-16
R-AL4 County of Los Angeles - Community and Senior Services
Donnelly Roseann F4-17 F4-18
State Agencies
R-AS1 State of California Native American Heritage Commission
Singleton Dave F4-20 F4-25
R-AS2 State of California - Department of Transportation, District 7
Watson Dianna F4-26 F4-28
R-AS3 State of California - Public Utilities Commission
Gilbert Daren F4-29 F4-30
Businesses and Business Groups
R-BU1 Green Bamboo Hong William F4-32 F4-33
R-BU2 Hines Shepherd Colin F4-34 F4-35
R-BU3 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP on behalf of the Los Angeles Times
Friess K. Erik F4-36 F4-42
R-BU4 Thomas Properties Group, Inc. Ricci Thomas S. F4-45 F4-63
Responses to Comments Volume F-4
Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Page F4-iii Environmental Impact Report
Comment Letter
Affiliation Last Name First Name Comment Page
Response Page
R-BU5 Little Tokyo Business Association and Little Tokyo Business Improvement District; Little Tokyo Community Council
Liu; Okamoto Wilson; Mike F4-86 F4-87
R-BU6 DLA Piper LLP on behalf of Hines Interest Limited Partnership
Leaderman Ryan M. F4-89 F4-107
R-BU7 Latham & Watkins LLP on behalf of Japanese Village, LLC
Crockett Robert D. F4-125 F4-156
R-BU8 Downtown LA Arts District Business Improvement District
R-AF2 U.S. Department of the Interior Port Patricia Sanderson
F4-1
U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityFEMA Region lXl ll I Broadway. Suite 1200Oakland. C A. 9 4607 -4052
FEMAAugust 30, 201I
Ms. Dolores Roybal SaltarelliLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority1 Gateway Plaza,MS 99-22-2Los Angeles, Califomi a 90012
Dear Ms. Saltarelli:
This is in response to your request for comments regarding the Regional Connector TransitCorridor Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Recirculated Sections of the DraftEnvironmental Impact Report.
Please review the current effective countywide Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for theCounty (Community Number 065043) and City (Community Number 060137) of Los Angeles,Maps revised September 26,2008. Please note that the City of Los Angeles, Los AngelesCounty, California is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Theminimum, basic NFIP floodplain management building requirements are described in Vol. 44Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Sections 59 through 65.
A summary of these NFIP floodplain management building requirements are as follows:
o All buildings constructed within a riverine floodplain, (i.e., Flood Zones A, AO, AH, AE,and Al through A30 as delineated on the FIRM), must be elevated so that the lowestfloor is at or above the Base Flood Elevation level in accordance with the effective FloodInsurance Rate Map.
o If the area of construction is located within a Regulatory Floodway as delineated on theFIRM, any development must not increase base flood elevation levels. The termdevelopmenl means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate,including but not limited to buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling,grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, and storage of equipment ormaterials. A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed pylpyto the start ofdevelopment, and must demonstrate that the development would not cause any rise inbase flood levels. No rise is permitted within regulatory floodways.
www.fema.gov
R-AF1
F4-2
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
1
Dolores SaltarelliPage2August 30, 2011
All buildings constructed within a coastal high hazard area, (any of the "V" Flood Zonesas delineated on the FIRM), must be elevated on pilings and columns, so that the lowesthorizontal structural member, (excluding the pilings and columns), is elevated to or above
the base flood elevation level. In addition, the posts and pilings foundation and thestructure attached thereto, is anchored to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movementdue to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all buildingcomponents.
Upon completion of any development that changes existing Special Flood Hazard Areas,the NFIP directs all participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic andhydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM revision. In accordance with 44 CFR, Section 65.3,as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data becomes available, a
community shall notiff FEMA of the changes by submitting technical data for a floodmap revision. To obtain copies of FEMA's Flood Map Revision Application Packages,please refer to the FEMA website at http://www.f-ema.gov/business/nflp/fbrms.shtm.
Please Note:
Many NFIP participating communities have adopted floodplain management buildingrequirements which are more restrictive than the minimum federal standards described in 44
CFR. Please contact the local community's floodplain manager for more information on localfloodplain management building requirements. The City of Los Angeles floodplain manager canbe reached by calling Gary Moore, City Engineer, at (213) 485-4935. The Los Angeles Countyfloodplain manager can be reached by calling George De La O, Senior Civil Engineer, at (626)458-7155.
If you have any questions or concems, please do not hesitate to call Cynthia McKenzie of theMitigation staff at (510) 627-7190.
Sincerely,
^, rS,M
GregHa cuavr{cryi, Branch Chiefn r'
""Jp r "- il;ffi ;';;l;;;;;; B ranc h
cc:Gary Moore, City Engineer, City of Los AngelesGeorge De La O, Senior Civil Engineer, Los Angeles County Public Works, Watershed
Management DivisionGarret Tam Sing/Salomon Miranda, State of California, Department of Water Resources,
Southern Region OfficeCynthia McKenzie, Senior Floodplanner, CFM, DHS/FEMA Region IXAlessandro Amaglio, Environmental Officer, DHS/FEMA Region IX
Responses to Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security – FEMA, Blackburn, Gregor
Response to Comment R-AF1-1
Metro has reviewed the applicable Flood Insurance Rate Maps. No part of the proposed project would be located within a riverline floodplain, regulatory floodway, or coastal high hazard area. No project activities would change any existing special flood hazard area. This is documented in Section 4.10, Water Resources, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, and additional detail is provided in Appendix V, Water Resources Technical Memorandum. The above-referenced section and appendix of this EIS/EIR also include analysis based on local City of Los Angeles requirements.
F4-4
United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Pacific Southwest Region 333 Bush Street, Suite 515 San Francisco, CA 94101
IN REPLY REFER TO: ER# 10/741 Electronically Filed 1 September 2011 Ms. Dolores Roybal Saltarelli, AICP, Project Manager Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza, MS 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012 e-mail: [email protected] Mr. Ray Tellis, Team Leader Los Angeles Metropolitan Office Federal Transit Administration 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 e-mail: [email protected] Subject: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Draft Environmental Impact Report
Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Recirculated Sections, Regional Corridor Transit Corridor Project, Los Angeles CA
Dear Ms. Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis: The Department of the Interior has received and reviewed the subject document and has no comments to offer. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Sincerely,
Patricia Sanderson Port Regional Environmental Officer
R-AL1 City of Los Angeles - Bureau of Engineering Tran Curtis
R-AL2 City of Los Angeles - Department of Transportation
Bok Susan
R-AL3 City of Los Angeles - Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation
Poosti Ali
R-AL4 County of Los Angeles - Community and Senior Services
Donnelly Roseann
F4-8
From: Curtis Tran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 01:30 PMTo: Kerman, Ann Cc: Hu, Kang <[email protected]>; Calvin Chow <[email protected]>; Bok, Susan <[email protected]>; Wang, Allen <[email protected]>; Matthew masuda<[email protected]>; Sobalvarro, Ivania <[email protected]>; Mohr, Laura <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>;Roybal, Dolores; Gonzalez, Fernando <[email protected]>; Cheung, David <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Metro Regional Connector Update Hi Ann, Here are the review comments from Bureau of Engineering: 1) For Article 2.3.6.2 Route Configuration, 5th paragraph, Is the City (CLA and LADOT) agrees to eliminate the north-‐south traffic along Hewitt Street and 1st Street Intersection? The Hewitt Street and 1stStreet intersection was designed and constructed, during the Eastside LRT Project, to accommodate the north-‐south traffic along Hewitt Street for the future Mangrove property development. Thiselimination is not accepted. We need to discuss this ASAP.
2) For Article 4.18.2.5.1 Cut and Cover Construction, please contact Bureau of Sanitation for proper water (potable, groundwater, etc.) discharges into the City sewer and/or stormdrain systems. There will bea sewer service charge for discharging water into the City sewer system. Proper water treatment is needed before the water can be discharged into the City stormdrain system.
Thx.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Ann Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Reminder: Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections Available for Public Review
Metro is currently circulating the Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Recirculated Sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIRSections) presenting information on the refinements to the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Regional Connector.
You are invited to review and comment on this document. The 45-day public review and comment period for the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections began on July 22, 2011and will end September 6, 2011.
A copy of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections is available at metro.net/regionalconnector and at public libraries in the study area. For a full listing of these libraries, pleasevisit the project website at metro.net/regionalconnector.
Responses to Comments from the City of Los Angeles – Bureau of Engineering, Tran, Curtis
Response to Comment R-AL1-1
Comment noted. This elimination of through north-south traffic movement at the intersection of 1st and Hewitt Streets was included in Sections 2.3.6.2 and impacts associated with the elimination of the through north-south traffic movement was discussed in Section 3.3.5.2.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR. The intersection is not projected to have a significant negative change in Level of Significance (LOS measured in seconds of delay) when compared to the No Build Alternative conditions. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts were identified. As indicated in Section 2.3.6.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, automobile access to the Mangrove property would continue to be available from Temple and 1st Streets. Metro has coordinated with the City of Los Angeles, including the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), throughout the environmental and design process for this project. Metro will continue to coordinate with the City of Los Angeles, including LADOT, regarding intersection modifications throughout the project process.
Response to Comment R-AL1-2
Metro has been in coordination and will continue to coordinate with the Bureau of Sanitation, refer to comment letter R-AL3. Metro will obtain the required permits from the Bureau of Sanitation for discharges into the drainage and sewer systems as indicated in Section 4.22 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR. As indicated in Section 4.10.3.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, there would be a potential need for dewatering if groundwater is encountered during construction activities. In order to comply with water discharge requirements, a dewatering permit would be obtained from the Los Angeles Regional Quality Control Board and proper water treatment would be performed before water is discharged, as indicated in Sections 4.10.3.3 and 4.10.3.5 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR.
LADOT acknowledges receipt of the Supplemental EA for the Regional Connector and has the following comments.
1. Section 2.3.6.2 - Mitigation measures will need to be developed for alternate access to the Mangrove development site if the Hewitt Street access driveway will be closed or limited as proposed.
2. Chapter 2, Page 24 (Revision from Metro) states: "Permanent roadway and lane reconfigurations would also be needed around the proposed 2nd/Hope Street station and the proposed pedestrian walkway enhancement along Flower Street. At the
2nd /Hope Street station, the ramps between Flower and Hope Streets would be modified. All existing traffic movements would still be possible in this location under the LPA. Final lane configurations will be developed with LADOT.") LADOT will continue towork with Metro to define a preferred roadway configuration for the 2nd/Hope Street intersection layout.
3. Chapter 2, Page 1 states: An enhanced pedestrian walkway would be created along the west side of Flower Street from the 4th Street and Flower Street area to the existing 7thStreet/Metro Center Station entrance at 7th and Flower Streets. LADOT would like to work with Metro to ensure that roadway capacity along Flower St. is not negatively impacted and thatthe proposed pedestrian walkway meets all applicable City standards.
Reminder: Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections Available for Public Review
Metro is currently circulating the Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Recirculated Sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIRSections) presenting information on the refinements to the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Regional Connector.
You are invited to review and comment on this document. The 45-day public review and comment period for the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections began on July 22, 2011and will end September 6, 2011.
A copy of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections is available at metro.net/regionalconnector and at public libraries in the study area. For a full listing of these libraries, pleasevisit the project website at metro.net/regionalconnector.
Responses to Comments from the City of Los Angeles – Department of Transportation, Bok, Susan
Response to Comment R-AL2-1
As indicated in Section 2.3.6.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, access to the Mangrove property would continue to be available via Temple Street and the westbound lanes of 1st Street.
Response to Comment R-AL2-2
Metro looks forward to continuing working with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Figure 2-12 of this Final EIS/EIR illustrates the proposed roadway configuration, which is discussed in Section 3.3.5.2.2 of this Final EIS/EIR.
Response to Comment R-AL2-3
Metro looks forward to continuing working with LADOT. The impacts of the lane reduction along Flower Street are examined in Section 3.3.5.2.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation measures to address these impacts are included in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIS/EIR and have been incorporated into Section 3.4.2 and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Locally Preferred Alternative (Chapter 8) of this Final EIS/EIR. The pedestrian walkway would meet applicable state and federal standards, as discussed in mitigation measure number SS-8 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Responses to Comments from the City of Los Angeles – Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation, Poosti, Ali
Response to Comment R-AL3-1
Thank you for the information regarding sewer lines in the project area. Metro would obtain the appropriate permits from the Bureau of Sanitation as described in Section 4.22 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR. Metro will coordinate with the Bureau of Sanitation regarding construction wastewater disposal.
Responses to Comments from the State of California Native American Heritage Commission, Singleton, Dave
Response to Comment R-AS1-1
Thank you for the letter. The Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections did not include information concerning archaeological/tribal resources or consultation with tribes as these resources would not be impacted beyond those impacts already described in the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR document the early consultation with the individuals and groups that were previously identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As part of the Draft EIS/EIR and preparation of the project Memorandum of Agreement, consultation and coordination was conducted with the NAHC to identify Native American cultural resources in the project area and a list of appropriate Native American contacts for the project. Correspondence was also sent to the Native American tribes identified by the NAHC inviting comments on the project Memorandum of Agreement. In addition, as part of the EIS/EIR, notices were sent to the NAHC soliciting input on the project during the environmental review process. The record of these consultations is summarized in Section 4.12, Historic Resources, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR and is described more specifically in Appendix Y, Cultural Resources - Archaeology (Updated). The Federal Transit Administration and Metro distributed the EIS/EIR, applicable Technical Memoranda, and the project Memorandum of Agreement to interested individuals and groups. No additional comments from interested tribal members and groups have been received to date. All of the cited relevant regulations and laws have been complied with as documented in this Final EIS/EIR including relevant appendices. Metro will continue to coordinate and consult with the NAHC, as appropriate.
Response to Comment R-AS1-2
Please refer to Response to Comment R-AS1-1, above.
Response to Comment R-AS1-3
Please refer to Response to Comment R-AS1-1, above.
Response to Comment R-AS1-4
Please refer to Response to Comment R-AS1-1, above.
Response to Comment R-AS1-5
Please refer to Response to Comment R-AS1-1, above.
Responses to Comments from the State of California - Department of Transportation, District 7, Watson, Dianna
Response to Comment R-AS2-1
The proposed headways on the light rail system with the Regional Connector in place would be every five minutes on the North-South Line and every five minutes on the East-West Line, as shown in Table 2-1 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR. This would match or improve the existing headways on the Metro Blue, Gold, and Expo Lines. One primary purpose of the Regional Connector is to make the transit system more convenient by reducing transfers. The North-South and East-West Lines proposed in Section 2.3.6.2 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR would more effectively meet this goal than stub lines, and would still preserve or improve existing headways.
Response to Comment R-AS2-2
This information is correct.
Response to Comment R-AS2-3
As indicated in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIS/EIR, truck haul trips would be primarily scheduled along existing freight routes during off-peak hours. This has been incorporated into mitigation measure number AQ-15 of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Locally Preferred Alternative (Chapter 8) of this Final EIS/EIR. Metro will continue to coordinate with Caltrans throughout the design and construction process and will acquire appropriate permits for construction of the Locally Preferred Alternative, which may include a Caltrans Transportation Permit if over-size or over-weight vehicles travel on state highways during construction as indicated in Section 4.22 of this Final EIS/EIR. Once construction lay down areas are identified, haul routes will be finalized and submitted to Caltrans for review. The platooning of truck trips on mainline freeways, freeway on/off-ramps, and freeway ramp intersections would be avoided. Refer to Section 4.22 of this Final EIS/EIR regarding coordination and approvals related to Caltrans.
Responses to Comments from the State of California Public Utilities Commission, Gilbert, Daren
Response to Comment R-AS3-1
Metro looks forward to continued coordination with the California Public Utilities Commission.
Response to Comment R-AS3-2
Responses to the prior written comments are included in Volume F-2 of this Final EIS/EIR as Responses to Comments AS3-1 through AS3-10.
Response to Comment R-AS3-3
Thank you for your comment. As discussed in Section 4.22 of this Final EIS/EIR, Metro will construct and operate the project according to the guidelines and oversight provided by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Responses to Businesses and Business Groups Comment Letters
Comment Letter Affiliation Last Name First Name
R-BU1 Green Bamboo Hong William
R-BU2 Hines Shepherd Colin
R-BU3 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP on behalf of the Los Angeles Times
Friess K. Erik
R-BU4 Thomas Properties Group, Inc. Ricci Thomas S.
R-BU5 Little Tokyo Business Association and Little Tokyo Business Improvement District; Little Tokyo Community Council
Liu; Okamoto Wilson; Mike
R-BU6 DLA Piper LLP on behalf of Hines Interest Limited Partnership
Leaderman Ryan M.
R-BU7 Latham & Watkins LLP on behalf of Japanese Village, LLC
Crockett Robert D.
R-BU8 Downtown LA Arts District Business Improvement District
Lopez Estela
R-BU9 Weisenhaus Architecture Weisenhaus Duane
R-BU10 Westin Hotels & Resorts Czarcinski Michael
F4-31
From: Will Hong [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 10:16 PMTo: Regional ConnectorSubject: Review - Supplemental EA/REcirculated Draft - Question
Dear Ms. Dolores Roybal Saltarelli:
My name is William Hong and an attorney here in Los Angeles. I'm also the son of one of the businessowner "Green Bamboo" located at 136 S. Central Ave. Los Angeles (near Office Depot - parcel: 516101802). I was asked to take a look at the Supplemental Environmental Impact Draft that was onlineaccording to a notice that was sent by Metro.
Upon my initial review of the project (and as quite impressive it is) I did find that Metro is planning a"partial takings" of the land where the business is located. I also read that businesses will be "relocated." However, how exactly the relocation and/or mitigation will be completed is a bit vague for me.
Is it possible that I may meet with you to discuss exactly what the plans would entail regarding thebusinesses that are located on the above mentioned parcel? I would just like some clarification of theplans for the businesses. If it helps, we maintain a great relationship with the majority of the businessowners that are currently operating in this parcel.
Responses to Comments from Green Bamboo, Hong, William
Response to Comment R-BU1-1
For the Locally Preferred Alternative, some acquisitions are planned on the block bounded by 1st Street, Central Avenue, 2nd Street, and Alameda Street. These are outlined in the parcel table in Appendix R-1, Locally Preferred Alternative Drawings, of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections and Appendix 1, Locally Preferred Alternative Drawings, of this Final EIS/EIR. The only businesses on this block that would be displaced are Señor Fish, the Spice Table, Weiland Brewery, and the adjacent parking lot. Green Bamboo is not part of these acquisitions, and would not be displaced or relocated. General information about relocation is provided in Section 4.2, Displacement and Relocation, of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections and this Final EIS/EIR. Relocation assistance plans would be developed based on the specific needs of each business and ongoing coordination between Metro and the business owners. Any displacement and relocation would be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Since Green Bamboo would not be displaced, no relocation assistance would be necessary. Metro has discussed the project with a representative of Green Bamboo, and would be happy to schedule further meetings upon request. Metro shall develop a Construction Mitigation Program that includes protocol for community notification of construction activities including traffic control measures, schedule of activities, and duration of operations, with written communications to the community translated into appropriate languages.
Responses to Comments from the Hines, Shepherd, Colin
Response to Comment R-BU2-1
This proposed temporary construction easement was included in both the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections released on July 22, 2011, and the earlier Draft EIS/EIR released on September 3, 2010. As with all of the proposed easements and acquisitions described in these documents, Metro is working to minimize the amount of land needed. Metro analyzed all viable alternate locations for construction staging in the vicinity of Flower Street as part of the ongoing preliminary engineering process. As indicated in Section 4.2.1 of the Draft EIS/EIR, Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections, and this Final EIS/EIR, Metro would provide compensation for the temporary construction easement consistent with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. No businesses would be displaced as a result of this easement, and access to businesses would be maintained at all times. No tenants would be required to leave. Given that Metro would provide compensation for the temporary construction easement, no businesses would be displaced as a result of this easement, and access to businesses would be maintained at all times, impacts to this parcel with respect to displacement and relocation would be less than significant and no adverse effect would occur. Metro shall develop a Construction Mitigation Program that includes protocol for community notification of construction activities including traffic control measures, schedule of activities, and duration of operations, with written communications to the community translated into appropriate languages. Recent renovations to the plaza are noted. Following construction of the Regional Connector, Metro would restore the plaza to its pre-construction condition. Metro would also ensure that any physical damage resulting from construction is repaired.
Responses to Comments from Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP on behalf of the Los Angeles Times, Friess, K. Erik
Response to Comment R-BU3-1
Comment acknowledged. Metro has continued meeting with the Los Angeles Times throughout the EIS/EIR process. Metro received the referenced October 18, 2010 comment letter and has included written responses numbered BU32-1 through BU32-6 in Volume F-2 of this Final EIS/EIR.
Response to Comment R-BU3-2
Thank you for providing this information. Metro is aware of the underground fuel tank beneath the surface parking lot, and its importance to the operations of the LA Times. Metro would relocate the tank in place during construction to allow it to continue operating, as shown in drawing A-102 in Appendix R-1 of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections. No significant impacts or adverse effects resulting from this relocation are anticipated.
Response to Comment R-BU3-3
As shown in Table 4.2-4 (and referenced in Section 4.2.3.5) of the Draft EIS/EIR and Table 4.2-5 (and referenced in Section 4.2.3.5) of this Final EIS/EIR, Metro proposes to acquire the properties at 201 South Spring Street and 200 and 208 South Broadway (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 5149-008-032, 5149-008-031, and 5149-008-030 respectively) as part of the Locally Preferred Alternative. The Tribune Company is identified as the owner of these parcels in Appendix II, Conceptual Drawings for Build Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft EIS/EIR, of the Draft EIS/EIR, Appendix R-1, Locally Preferred Alternative Drawings, of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections, and Appendix 1, Locally Preferred Alternative Drawings, of this Final EIS/EIR. The impacts of these acquisitions, including inconvenience for users of the parking lot, were examined in more detail in Section 5.4.1.3 (and referenced in Section 5.5.1.3) of Appendix N, Displacement and Relocation Technical Memorandum, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, and determined not to be significant/adverse. Section 4.2.3 of the Draft EIS/EIR, Supplemental EA/Recirculated EIR Sections, and this Final EIS/EIR references Appendix N, Displacement and Relocation Technical Memorandum, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR for additional analysis of proposed acquisitions where significant impacts or adverse effects would not occur.
Metro is aware of the existing parking lot and the fuel tank, and its importance to the operations of the LA Times. Metro would relocate the tank in place during construction to allow it to continue operating, as shown in drawing A-102 in Appendix R-1 of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections and Appendix 1, Locally Preferred Alternative Drawings, of this Final EIS/EIR. No significant impacts or adverse effects resulting from this relocation are anticipated.
Metro proposes to convert the surface parking lot to a station entrance and plaza, which would enhance the pedestrian environment and allow easier traversal of the above-listed parcels than the existing fenced parking lot. This improved pedestrian space between the parking structure
and 2nd Street would enhance, rather than bisect, the connection between the Los Angeles Times’ buildings.
As shown in Section 4.2.3 of the Draft EIS/EIR and Section 5.4.1.3 (and referenced in Section 5.5.1.3) of Appendix N, Displacement and Relocation Technical Memorandum, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, Metro has adequately evaluated and disclosed the impacts of acquiring these properties. After comparing these impacts with those of alternative station locations, Metro determined that the properties at 201 South Spring Street and 200 and 208 South Broadway would be the most environmentally and economically suitable location for the 2nd/Broadway station entrance and plaza. The interim use of the surface parking lot for movie shoots is noted. The property tax associated with parcels to be acquired and the potential for construction of the alternative to have substantial, adverse effects on businesses along the alignment was used to determine economic and fiscal impacts associated with the project. Refer to Section 4.14, Economic and Fiscal Impacts, of this Final EIS/EIR. Business compensation and assistance would be provided in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Alternate parking locations are available in the area, and the addition of a transit station to the area would likely cause some people to ride transit instead of driving, thus reducing the overall need for parking. No other land use changes on the Los Angeles Times’ properties are proposed as part of the Regional Connector project and the conversion of the parking lot to transit use is not expected to change uses on any of the other Los Angeles Times parcels. Land use impacts are evaluated in Section 4.1, Land Use and Development, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR.
Response to Comment R-BU3-4
Metro is aware of the fuel tank and its importance to the operations of the LA Times. Metro would relocate the tank in place during construction to allow it to continue operating, as shown in drawing A-102 in Appendix R-1 of the Supplemental EA/Recirculated Draft EIR Sections and Appendix 1, Locally Preferred Alternative Drawings, of this Final EIS/EIR. No significant impacts or adverse effects resulting from this relocation are anticipated.
Response to Comment R-BU3-5
The parking structure has exits onto both Spring Street and Broadway, and there are no legal crosswalks on 2nd Street between Spring Street and Broadway. As indicated in Chapter 3, Transportation Impacts and Mitigation, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, unavoidable adverse effects under NEPA and significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA would occur to pedestrian circulation during construction even with incorporation of mitigation. Nevertheless, once construction has been completed, pedestrian circulation would still be possible across the proposed station plaza because the plaza would be open to public access. The plaza would likely be more easily traversed than the existing fenced parking lot, thus enhancing the pedestrian connection between the parking structure and 2nd Street. This would represent an improvement to the pedestrian environment. Once the new station has opened, some Los Angeles Times employees may choose to ride transit to work instead of driving, thus eliminating their need to walk beyond the station entrance to the parking structure.
Metro has adequately analyzed the potential impacts to the Los Angeles Times’ properties. Metro evaluated the potential station location on 2nd Street between Main and Los Angeles Streets as part of the Underground Emphasis LRT Alternative in the Draft EIS/EIR, but found that this location would offer poor connections to the shopping district and proposed downtown streetcar project on Broadway. The Main/Los Angeles location would also be closer to the proposed station in Little Tokyo, and would result in uneven station spacing along 2nd Street. As shown in Section 4.2.3 of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR and Section 5.4.1.3 (and referenced in Section 5.5.1.3) of Appendix N, Displacement and Relocation Technical Memorandum, of the Draft EIS/EIR and this Final EIS/EIR, there would be no significant impacts/adverse effects associated with the displacement of the existing parking lot at 201 South Spring Street and 200 and 208 South Broadway. There are several other privately-operated parking lots and structures in the vicinity of these locations. Although loss of the current parking lot may cause an inconvenience for users, it would not represent a significant impact or adverse effect and the Regional Connector would provide new non-automobile access to the area, which would partially offset the parking demand in the area. Access to adjoining properties would be maintained at all times during construction.
F4-44
September 1, 2011 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Ms. Dolores Roybal Saltarelli Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority Los Angeles County One Gateway Plaza, MS 99-22-2 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Email: [email protected] Mr. Ray Tellis Federal Transit Administration 888 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1850 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Email: [email protected] Re: State Clearinghouse No. 2009031043 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Recirculated Sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Ms. Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis: Thomas Properties Group ("TPG") is the real property owner and property manager of the properties located at 515-555 South Flower Street, referred to as the "City National Plaza and Towers" in the Supplemental Environmental Assessment/Recirculated Sections of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("SEA/RSDEIR"), and 400 South Flower Street, referred to as the "J-2 Garage" (collectively, the "Adjacent Properties"). Both of the Adjacent Properties are immediately adjacent to the proposed locations of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("LACMTA") Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project ("Regional Connector" or "Project"). LACMTA has solicited comments only on the revisions to the previously circulated Draft EIS/EIR included in the SEA/RSDEIR. However, it must also be recognized that the substantial revisions in the SEA/RSDEIR must be considered in context with the Draft EIS/EIR, if the impacts cannot be distinguished with a bright-line test. Consequently, pursuant to CEQA/NEPA,1 the following comments are submitted on the Draft EIS/EIR and SEA/RSDEIR for consideration
1 References to "CEQA" are to the California Environmental Quality Act, at California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq. References to the "CEQA Guidelines" are to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq. References to "NEPA" are to the federal National Environmental Policy Act, at Title 42 U.S.C. sections 4321 et seq.
R-BU4
F4-45
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
1
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 2
TPG understands that the Regional Connector will be constructed, and that its path will follow Flower Street in immediate proximity to the Adjacent Properties. As a developer, owner, and property manager of predominantly sustainable, transit-oriented developments, TPG is an overall supporter of mass transit, and of the Regional Connector, specifically. However, TPG has a significant economic interest in ensuring that the construction impacts of the Regional Connector on emergency personnel and on the tenants, employees, patrons, and visitors of the Adjacent Properties are avoided or at least minimized to the greatest extent possible. TPG understands that the Fully Underground LRT Alternative described in the Draft EIR/EIS has now been selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative ("LPA"). We also understand that the LPA has been revised to eliminate the station proposed for Flower/5th/4th Streets due to lack of funding. TPG asks that this station continue to be included in the Regional Connector and in future studies, and not be eliminated at this time. A station in this location would provide an important and needed connection at the center of the Financial District and adjacent to the Central Library. The area around 5th Street is the major hub of commercial and financial services in downtown Los Angeles and should be served by the Regional Connector for all transit lines. Having no stations between 2nd Street and 7th Street (a distance of ¾ of a mile) will reduce the convenience and hence revenue-generating abilities of the entire rail system. In addition, as we note below, the EIS/EIR should continue to include a full discussion of the environmental impacts of this station, since the SEA/RSDEIR acknowledges that it is a reasonably foreseeable future development. The SEA/RSDEIR depicts a proposed extensive and intrusive Temporary Construction Easement on the west and east sides of Flower Street in front of the Adjacent Properties, and on 5th Street north of the City National Plaza and Towers, in Figure 2-15. Like the Draft EIS/EIR, the SEA/RSDEIR proposes to use the easement for construction staging. TPG met with representatives from the LACMTA and AECOM on August 22, 2011 to discuss our concerns about the Temporary Construction Easement shown in the SEA/RSDEIR. At that meeting, LACMTA representatives assured TPG that the scope and purpose of the Temporary Construction Easement would be sharply curtailed and narrowly defined, compared to the drawings included in the SEA/RSDEIR, describing an easement that would only extend a few feet inside of the property line and would be only as deep onto our property off the property line as is necessary to install any required K-rails and vehicular and pedestrian ramps (as discussed below). At that meeting, LACMTA presented a revised set of drawings showing a proposed revised Temporary Construction Easement ("Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement") across the Adjacent Properties. A set of these revised drawings was not left with us. We were told that the proposed revised plans are not final and have not been distributed to the public.
R-BU4
F4-46
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
2
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
3
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
4
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 3
In our discussion, LACMTA representatives made it clear that the sole purposes of any Temporary Construction Easement over our Adjacent Properties, including the Proposed Revised Temporary Construction Easement, would be (i) to allow the contractor to install and remove K-rails and fences that are necessary to separate pedestrians from the street where work is being done, with such K-rails and fences to be located along our property line, immediately to the east of the existing retail escalator structures along our easterly property line on Flower Street, and (ii) to install and remove temporary pedestrian and driveway ramping, if any, that may be necessary to transition between the elevation of the construction cut and cover plates on Flower Street and the elevation of the existing driveways and sidewalks along Flower Street between Fourth and Sixth Streets. LACMTA representatives indicated that the cut and cover construction could be done using one of two different methods. One method would have the steel plates installed at existing street level (which no grade differential). The other method would have steel plates installed higher than existing street level, resulting in a grade differential that may be as much as 18 to 24 inches between the steel plates and the existing driveway and sidewalk elevations. As expressed in the meeting, TPG has serious concerns about any grade differential between the sidewalks and the steel plates installed in the street, and specifically the height of the proposed grade differential. Any such grade differential will have serious impacts on safe and convenient access for vehicles into and out of the Adjacent Properties’ driveways, and for pedestrians who access the Adjacent Properties from buses, taxis and shuttles in the drop off area on the west side of Flower Street in front of City National Plaza, from the mid-block cross-walk in front of City National Plaza, at each corner of the City National Plaza property, and on the east side of Flower Street in front of the J-2 Garage. The size and safety of the temporary ramping that would be required to overcome as much as a 24 inch grade differential along Flower Street is of great concern to TPG. It is questionable whether such ramping would be safe for our visitors and tenants to navigate and whether it could comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; “ADA”) and other disabled access laws, and whether it can provide access for emergency vehicles. TPG also expressed our concerns about the impact of any grade differential on the use of the mid-block pedestrian cross-walk and the safety and efficiency of bus loading and unloading in the bus drop off area, with the resulting congestion that will result along Flower Street, past the City National Plaza and Towers underground garage entrance ramp, if buses are unable to efficiently drop off and pick up passengers. In particular, there does not appear to be sufficient area between the garage entrance ramp and the bus drop off area for efficient use.
R-BU4
F4-47
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
4
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
cont'd
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
5
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 4
We understand that LACMTA is speaking with LADOT about these and other traffic concerns that would arise from the cut and cover construction along Flower Street, including possible impairment of the sight lines for cars accessing and departing from the City National Plaza and Towers underground garage on the Flower Street ramps and the safety of pedestrians. LACMTA should discuss with LADOT the need for the Adjacent Properties to have continuous and uninterrupted ingress and egress for vehicles from and onto Flower Street and for pedestrians to have such access across the mid-block cross-walk and over our plazas. TPG has experienced severe congestion in the underground parking garage at City National Plaza when cars were unable to exit onto Flower Street in the past year due to one or more lanes of Flower Street being blocked south of the complex by road work, and may experience similar problems if there were serious congestion on Flower Street as a result of the temporary and permanent effects of the Project. Not only is such congestion an inconvenience to our tenants and visitors, it also creates serious operating and safety risks in the garage (with cars unable to move on the garage ramps, resulting in blocking of a key exit from the property). In our August 22, 2011 meeting with LACMTA representatives, TPG emphasized that at all times pedestrians must have continuous and unimpeded access to and from our property across each corner on Flower Street, across the mid-block cross-walk, to and from the bus drop off area on Flower Street, to and from the 5th Street Pedestrian Bridge, and into and out of each of the retail escalators that run from our B Level Retail Shops and Restaurants to Flower Street. TPG mentioned that we have been in communication with the City Battalion Fire Chief Michael Thomas regarding the need to protect the exit routes from each tower across our plaza areas and to safe zones at least 300 feet from the buildings. LACMTA construction cannot be allowed to impair or impede this safety requirement. LACMTA representatives assured our team that MTA understood and shared this goal of keeping access to our Adjacent Properties open and unimpeded. LACMTA clarified at our August 22, 2011 meeting that the cut and cover construction could be done in two different ways. We understand from that meeting that the Project could be constructed with steel plates installed in Flower Street at existing grade level, so that there would be no separation or grade differential between the existing Flower Street and the steel plates and, therefore, no need for ramps for vehicles or pedestrians along the Adjacent Properties. TPG strongly prefers this method of cut and cover construction for the Project along the Adjacent Properties if the work is not done by tunnel boring.
R-BU4
F4-48
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
6
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
7
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
8
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
9
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 5
TPG also mentioned in our August 22. 2011 meeting that our restaurants are open on evenings and weekends and that continuous access will be needed during those hours for vehicles to park for the restaurants. We also have a fitness club that operates 24 hours per day and restaurants on the B Level of the City National Plaza and Towers that operate during late hours. LACMTA representatives mentioned that work on the Project would be done on weekends and after normal business hours, but our restaurants and other businesses that operate 24 hours or after normal business hours will need special protection for access and noise abatement even during those hours. As you know, City National Plaza is unique in that it has almost 200,000 square feet of underground retail and restaurant tenants and other users on B Level. This space is located adjacent to where the subway tunneling will be done under Flower Street. Mitigation steps should be taken to minimize noise and vibration during the Regional Connector work that could be heard or felt on the B Level. While other properties on Flower Street may not be as affected by subterranean work under Flower Street, our tenants on B Level could definitely be adversely impacted by such noise and vibration. Additionally, based on the meeting, LACMTA is now considering relocating the pocket track away from Flower Street between 4th and 6th Streets, thereby reducing the tracks to two and narrowing the tunnels along the Adjacent Properties, which moves the tunnels farther away from the existing improvements. TPG agrees with this approach and asks that LACMTA limit the tracks under Flower Street to two and narrow the size of the tunnels between 4th and 6th Streets so that the work under Flower Street is moved as far as possible away from the underground structures under the Adjacent Properties. We may have additional concerns and comments if LACMTA decides to build a pocket track under Flower Street in the area of the Adjacent Properties. Our comments concerning the impacts of the Project reflect our understanding that the scope and purpose of the proposed Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement described in this letter, and the relocation of the pocket track, are consistent with LACMTA’s intent. If LACTMA’s intent is not as described in this letter, TPG requests that LACMTA immediately inform us, so we can discuss this further before the Final EIS/EIR s completed. TPG has every confidence in the good faith of LACMTA's representations at our August 22, 2011 meeting regarding its current plans (i) to limit the scope and purpose of the Temporary Construction Easement to be consistent with the scope and limited purposes that were described for the Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement presented at the meeting with LACMTA representatives on August 22, 2011, as described above, and (ii) to redesign the subway tunnels to have only two tracks along the Adjacent Properties, with no pocket track in that area. Even so, this letter contains our comments
R-BU4
F4-49
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
10
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
11
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
12
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
13
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 6
on the SEA/RSDEIR and the Draft EIS/EIR (collectively, the "Circulated Documents"), as well as on the Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement and the other issues raised at our August 22, 2011 meeting, in order to retain all of TPG's legal rights. In light of the proximity of, and potential impacts to, the Adjacent Properties, TPG requests the following be addressed with respect to the construction and operation of the Regional Connector, as more fully explained, below:
• The feasibility of constructing the Regional Connector by the tunnel boring method under Flower Street to minimize any surface impacts on Flower Street, 5th Street and 6th Street, which are all highly congested and provide critical circulation and access for thousands of workers, visitors and transit riders, as well as emergency personnel who need to access the Adjacent Properties.
• The adverse vehicular access and circulation impacts that would result to the Adjacent Properties during construction using the cut and cover construction technique, including, without limitation, any barriers or grade differentials created by work on Flower Street, 5th Street and 6th Street.
• The adverse impacts to pedestrians, many of whom are employees and visitors to the City National Plaza and Towers, that would result from the cut and cover construction activities, including, without limitation, any barriers or grade differentials created by the work on Flower Street, 5th Street and 6th Street.
• The adverse impacts to the retail and restaurant tenants in the City National Plaza and Towers from any interruption to access to that property during construction.
• The adverse impacts to downtown traffic flow due to the interference with the Flower Street stop for transit, shuttle and other modes of transportation between 4th and 6th Streets, including, without limitation, the size or ease of access to those stops.
• The adverse impacts that construction and tunneling under Flower Street could have on the B Level and the subterranean garage at the City National Plaza and Towers and the subterranean portion of the J-2 Garage.
• The potentially significant impacts that construction noise and vibration levels may have on TPG's tenants, including, without limitation, the subterranean B Level tenants. General mitigation measures have been identified in the Draft EIS/EIR;
R-BU4
F4-50
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
13
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
cont'd
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
14
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
15
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
16
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
17
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
18
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
19
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
20
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 7
however, no mitigation measure has been specifically identified in the SEA/RSDEIR despite TPG's prior comments to address the substantial change in ambient noise and vibration levels in the immediate vicinity of the Adjacent Properties.
• The significant traffic impacts identified in the Draft EIS/EIR (decreased LOS), and potentially exacerbated by the revisions to the LPA described but not analyzed in the SEA/RSDEIR, that would result from permanently reducing the number of traffic lanes in the immediate vicinity of the Adjacent Properties on Flower Street.
The Draft EIS/EIR and the SEA/RSDEIR make the general and unsupported statement that access to the Adjacent Properties would be maintained at all times. To the contrary, the Temporary Construction Easement depicted in the SEA/RSDEIR would block access to the Adjacent Properties from Flower Street and 5th Street for both vehicles and pedestrians, which would create significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic, access and safety.
However, during the August 22, 2011 meeting with TPG, LACMTA expressed its intent that vehicular and pedestrian access to the Adjacent Properties will not be blocked along Flower Street, including the mid-block cross-walk, or 5th Street for any period during the business hours of City National Plaza and its businesses (which are generally from 6:00 am through midnight on business days and from 11:00 am through midnight on weekends, subject to the 24 hour fitness club and late restaurant hours of some tenants), and that the construction will not be allowed to cause any adverse impacts to the safety of TPG’s tenants and visitors. We request that appropriate mitigation measures be addressed in consultation with TPG to assure that such vehicular and pedestrian access is assured. Any such blockage would potentially cause severe and unacceptable safety and hazards impacts, not to mention millions of dollars of economic damages, to TPG and our tenants.
TPG's concerns over the potential impacts to the Adjacent Properties from the Temporary Construction Easement described in the Draft EIS/EIR and the SEA/RSDEIR are heightened by the almost total lack of information in the Draft EIS/EIR and the SEA/RSDEIR regarding the purposes and use of the Temporary Construction Easement. CEQA, including, e.g., Sections 21001 through 21003.1, and Sections 15124 through 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, requires that any facet of a project which has so many potential adverse impacts be clearly defined and that the environmental analysis include mitigation measures to address the significant impacts. The Draft EIS/EIR and SEA/RSDEIR, in contrast, do little more than provide a dotted-line representation of the extent of the Temporary Construction Easement and promise, without substantiation, that it will be made "as compatible as possible" to the Adjacent Properties. This general description falls far short of CEQA's requirements. There is no description of what activities will be conducted on the easement area, what sorts of equipment will be involved in
R-BU4
F4-51
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
20
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
cont'd
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
21
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
22
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
23
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 8
the use of the easement, whether there be any access through the easement or whether there will be barricades. (See, e.g., SEA/RSDEIR Chap. 4, §§ 4.2.3.5 et seq.) Further, the Circulated Documents do not indicate what will happen to the garage ingress and egress points, or the bus, shuttle and taxi and other car drop off areas, or the pedestrian overpass over 5th Street, or whether access will be provided to and from the J-2 Garage, which is a major source of tenant and visitor parking for the City National Plaza and Towers. The Draft EIS/EIR and the SEA/RSDEIR fail to provide this information, as well as what other mitigation measures could be included in the Project to address this myriad of impacts and what their effects would be.
CEQA simply does not permit a project to brush off such significant considerations with a "we will deal with it when we get there" approach. (See, e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92 [When setting aside a city's promise to adopt a greenhouse gas reduction plan in the future to mitigate a project's significant impacts, the Court of Appeal noted that"[n]umerous cases illustrate that reliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking"]; San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670 [EIR found defective for failing to analyze impacts, provide mitigation and analyze the impacts of mitigation; if "[t]he success or failure of mitigation efforts … may largely depend on management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR," the EIR is defective]..) The failure to identify the significant impacts of the Temporary Construction Easement, to provide feasible mitigation for such impacts, and to evaluate alternatives, renders the Draft EIS/EIR and SEA/RSDEIR fatally flawed. (See, e.g., Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1233 ["CEQA compels government first to identify the environmental effects of projects, and then to mitigate those adverse effects through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures or through the selection of feasible alternatives"]; Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 165 Cal.4th 105, 134 [CEQA contains a substantive mandate not to approve a project with significant environmental effects if there are feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects].)
As indicated above, TPG believes in the good faith of the LACMTA team at our August 22, 2011 discussion in delineating and explaining the true scope and purpose of the Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement, which are more limited than as disclosed in the Circulated Documents. However, since all we can officially comment on are the Circulated Documents, TPG must go on record with our objections and concerns based on those documents.
R-BU4
F4-52
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
23
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
cont'd
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
cont'd
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
24
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
25
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
26
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 9
1. Vehicular access to the Adjacent Properties.
The City National Plaza and Towers has three vehicular access points: one from 5th Street just west of Flower Street, one near the main bus stop south of 5th Street on the west side of Flower Street and a loading dock access ramp from 5th Street adjacent to the parking garage ramp. The egress from the underground parking structure to the surface includes a one-lane exit-only ramp on the north side of 6th Street, west of Flower Street, and a similar ramp exiting to Flower Street just north of 6th Street. Because both exit ramps angle onto one-way streets leading away from the City National Plaza and Towers (6th Street is restricted to eastbound traffic, and Flower Street is restricted to southbound traffic) neither exit (leaving aside other constraints) can be converted into suitable ingress points during construction. All of these ingress and egress points must be preserved at all times and cannot be impacted by the Temporary Construction Easement. Any interruption in access to the underground parking structure would severely impact the safety and convenience of the office and retail tenants, visitors, vendors, and customers at City National Plaza and Towers, and the safety of the structures, would result in significant economic impacts to both our tenants and to City National Plaza and Towers, and could result in the exercise of remedies by our tenants against TPG based on the inability to access and use the parking and the buildings.
The main vehicular access points from Flower Street to the J-2 Garage, a main supplemental source for tenant parking, would also be impacted by the Temporary Construction Easement on the east side of Flower Street between 4th and 5th Streets. Again, this access point to the J-2 Garage must be preserved and kept open at all times for use by the tenants, visitors and customers of the City National Plaza and Towers, which access is required by the applicable leases. The bulk of the parking for City National Plaza and Towers is accommodated at the J-2 Garage and it is as important to the operation of the property as our on-site underground parking structure.
2. Pedestrian access to the Adjacent Properties.
Tower Access. Due to security concerns, both of the City National Plaza office towers can only be accessed from the inward facing doors in front of the security desks. Neither the Temporary Construction Easement, nor the Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement can interfere with pedestrian access across the plaza to the front doors at each tower. In addition, such access must be compliant with the ADA for impaired or disabled persons. There can be no obstructions or ramps that would not permit continued ready access for impaired or disabled pedestrians to the buildings in compliance with the ADA. Most of the pedestrians who visit the property access it from the east, crossing Flower Street at each corner and at the mid-block crosswalk. All of these access points must be kept open and readily accessible at all times for all pedestrians, in compliance with the ADA.
R-BU4
F4-53
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
27
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
28
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
29
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 10
Access to Retail Tenants. According to Figure 2-15 in the SEA/RSDEIR, the exterior pedestrian access escalators to the underground retail area on B Level of the City National Plaza and Towers would be impacted by the Temporary Construction Easement. This retail area requires continuous access from the escalators at each end of the block along Flower Street in order for visitors and customers from the area to access the businesses on B Level. Any interference with such access would adversely affect the retail establishments in an already depressed economy, and limit the restaurant/food options for workers and visitors in the financial district. Direct access to this retail area is necessary at all times, which is not assured by the changes in the SEA/RSDEIR.
Access to J-2 Garage and beyond. The SEA/RSDEIR does not reveal how the Temporary Construction Easement will affect, if at all, the existing escalator and elevated pedestrian walkway, which crosses 5th Street between the City National Plaza and Towers and the Bonaventure Hotel complex. Figure 2-15 in the SEA/RSDEIR indicates that the escalator and walkway over 5th Street could be impacted. The elevated pedestrian accesses between J-2 Garage and the Bonaventure Hotel Complex and from the City National Plaza and Towers across 5th Street are critical to the safety of the pedestrians who move between these buildings and facilities, many of whom are tenants and visitors to the City National Plaza and Towers.
If the existing overpass between the Bonaventure Hotel Complex and the J-2 Garage is obstructed, the current access to properties east of Flower Street will be impaired. Currently, this overpass bears a significant amount of pedestrian traffic that is kept off the sidewalks and out of the cross-walks, resulting in both pedestrian and traffic benefits that would be lost during construction of the Regional Connector if the bridge and walkways are obstructed or impaired. The Draft EIS/EIR concluded that there were no significant problems with pedestrian traffic capacity in the area, but failed to appreciate the importance of the overpass network in creating that pedestrian flow.
3. Safety of the tenants, visitors, vendors and customers of the City National Plaza and Towers.
As TPG has indicated, pedestrian access to and from the City National Plaza and Towers from the east must be kept open at all times, and fire/life safety concerns dictate that the fire/emergency exits on the east sides of the office towers be unobstructed at all times. There can be no interference with fire access through the fire doors on the east side of the buildings. If those exits were ever blocked in connection with the Project, the safety of our tenants and visitors would be imperiled, with inadequate means of exiting during an emergency, and leaving disabled and infirm persons no means of exit. Given the thousands of people who occupy the City National Plaza and Towers, and the high state of panic that fires and other emergencies create, any interference with use of those exits and unimpeded access from the doors
R-BU4
F4-54
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
30
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
31
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
32
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 11
across the plaza areas adjacent to each set of exit doors for evacuation purposes, and for emergency personnel access to the office towers, creates a significant and unsupportable safety hazard, and is a recipe for a major disaster. In addition, TPG is concerned that the Temporary Construction Easement, as described in the Draft EIS/EIR and the SEA/RSDEIR, and even as described in the meeting with LACMTA representatives, may impair access by fire department, ambulance and other medical and emergency services to the City National Plaza and Towers and subterranean levels by virtue of the construction activities on Flower Street, together with the existing grade separation between Figueroa Street and the plaza level. The Draft EIS/EIR and SEA/RSDEIR provide no information on how fire trucks and other emergency vehicles would reach the buildings if access from the east is impaired and only the limited western access is available.
Moreover, as noted above, the Temporary Construction Easement could also impair the use of the exterior escalators between the street level and the retail tenants on the B level of the Towers, which would interfere with an important exit route from the retail area in the event of an emergency, and which is particularly important in view of the fact that this retail area sits two levels below the surface.
4. Bus, shuttle and other transit modes, affecting the entire downtown traffic flow.
The bus stops on Flower Street just south of 5th Street adjacent to the City National Plaza and Towers are the terminus or a main stop for a large number of bus lines in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, including the San Gabriel Valley, Long Beach, Santa Monica, and the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, San Bernardino County and Orange County. They also handle considerable traffic from several DASH routes, including the A, B, and F lines. In addition, TPG provides shuttle service to Union Station, all local government and court buildings, Staples Center and other downtown destinations from the City National Plaza and Towers on Flower Street, and taxis and other cars use the cut-out along the west side of Flower Street between 5th and 6th Streets. These transportation lines and services are heavily utilized by employees, tenants, patrons, guests and visitors of City National Plaza and Towers. During rush hours, it is sometimes necessary for transit vehicles to queue or double-park at the bus stops because of the heavy bus traffic, which exceeds that of many other downtown locations. Therefore, it is important that this area remain open and accessible on Flower Street throughout the Project to allow staging of shuttles, taxis and passenger vehicles as they load passengers without blocking traffic lanes on Flower Street. The Temporary Construction Easement shown in the Circulated Documents could displace transit and other traffic flow, and create congestion on other downtown streets already severely congested, for a number of years. For the reasons we have described, these impacts are not acceptable and the bus stop area on Flower Street should remain open and functioning at all times.
R-BU4
F4-55
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
Owner
Polygonal Line
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
32
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
cont'd
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
33
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
34
GLASSBURNES
Typewritten Text
35
Ms, Roybal Saltarelli and Mr. Tellis September 1, 2011 Page 12
5. The subterranean garages.
TPG is concerned about the width of the subterranean tunnel work along the Adjacent Properties shown on the Draft EIS/EIR and the SEA/RSDEIR. Based on the August 22, 2011 meeting, TPG understands that LACMTA is planning to relocate the pocket track away from the Adjacent Properties, so the tracks under Flower Street would be limited to two tracks. From this information, we understand that the tunneling work would remain further away from the foundations of the Adjacent Properties. This is an important development to TPG, since the two track design should keep the tunneling from severely physically impacting our subterranean structures. However, the SEA/RSDEIR fails to clarify how the impacts to the structures, lateral support, drainage, utilities, geotechnical and other factors affecting the underground levels of the Adjacent Properties will be avoided or mitigated during construction of the Project.
In addition to concerns regarding geotechnical matters, TPG also objects to any use of the Temporary Construction Easement or the Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement for staging or other uses that could damage the subterranean structures below the easement area. Placement of equipment or construction materials within the easement area could cause immediate damage, certainly, but could also cause less obvious, long-term damage. In addition, use of the Temporary Construction Easement area or the Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement area could result in vibration and other impacts to the garage structure, both at the City National Plaza and Towers and at the J-2 Garage. At the meeting with LACMTA, TPG was advised that no such uses of the Temporary Construction Easement or the Potential Revised Temporary Construction Easement were proposed or contemplated by LACMTA, but TPG needs assurance that the final easement proposed on the Adjacent Properties will not permit any such staging or other uses that would adversely affect the subterranean structure. TPG requests that appropriate mitigation measures be added to the Final EIS/EIR in coordination with TPG, to preclude any such uses of the final Temporary Construction Easement, however it is configured.
6. Construction noise and vibration impacts.
Although previously raised in TPG's October 2010 comment letter on the Draft EIS/EIR, the concerns regarding construction phase noise and vibration impacts on TPG's tenants have not been addressed. These impacts will no doubt result in claims being made by our tenants, and TPG will expect compensation from LACMTA, as discussed below. TPG requests that appropriate mitigation measures be adopted with respect to the Adjacent Properties in order to mitigate potential ground movement associated with the construction, including, without limitation, the cut and cover construction and tunneling. We request that measures similar to those described on Page 4.12-45 of the SEA/RSDEIR be adopted with respect to the work contemplated along the Adjacent Properties.
